Running Head: ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY
Analysis of the Theoretical Framework of Purtee Pearson’s Dissertation (1990)
Deborah Davis
Liberty University Online
201340 EDUC 701: Theories of Research in Educational Psychology
Dr. Terrell L. Elam
Aug 19, 2013 – Oct 13, 2013
1
ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY
2
Analysis of the Theoretical Framework of Purtee Pearson’s Dissertation (1990)
A theoretical framework provides a stable structure of reference for a well-researched
document. Further, that structure will provide a foundation on which the research questions may
be laid and on which the logic of the research may be built. In Pearson’s (1990) Dissertation
regarding the methods for increasing reading outcomes of fifth grade social studies students, she
builds on such a framework.
Summary
A plethora of learning theories may clutter the mind of the educational student, but when
dissertation time comes, that student must provide a clear and stable foundational theory (or two)
on which to base a research question (or two or three). Purtee Pearson’s (1990) Dissertation is
no different in this arena. Her foundation is the poured concrete of schema theory on the rock
base of cognitive theories.
Central Theory
“Bartlett (1932) proposed the concept of ‘schema’ as an active organization [sic] of past
reactions, or of past experiences, which are blended with current world information to produce
behavior [sic]. A schema is a form of mental template” (as cited by Walker, 2012, p. 251).
McVee, Dunsmore, and Gavalek “continue to talk about schema theory as a useful model of
reading comprehension” (2005, p. 532). Thus, it is the logical choice for Purtee Pearson’s
Dissertation regarding reading issues.
Research Questions
Purtee Pearson presented two research questions for this dissertation (1990):
ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY
3
(1) Were the post-reading comprehension test scores following a lesson using anyone of
the given prereading approaches significantly different at the .05 level from the lesson
introduced by the control organizer?
(2) Were the post-reading comprehension test scores following a lesson using anyone of
the given prereading approaches significantly different at the .05 level from the other
two? (p. 6).
Considering the nature of the schemata as a foundational framework, particularly as
regards reading comprehension, the questions are reasonable and logical and apply to the
framework. In that “text has been determined to be only the framework for meaning” (Purtee
Pearson, 1990, p. 16), the application of schemata to these questions provide a framework within
a framework for the issue of comprehension.
The whole process can be likened to the construction of a building. Cognitive theory is
the rocky compacted soil. Schema theory provides the concrete foundation. The schemata
themselves are the framing tools on which the text will be placed as would drywall in the solid
places and glass in the windows of the building. So, too, will Purtee Pearson’s answers build on
the framework of her questions.
Much like the building, however, there are other frames to be put in place. These
doorframes, window frames, and stairwells are the subordinate data collection questions that lead
to the answers of the primary questions – these are the elements such as comprehension levels
before and after each form of advance directive and the assumptions (basically the equivalency
of all involved parties by tier – students, student teachers, supervising instructors) as well.
Without these internal structures, despite a solid foundation, the building will fall; the research
would fail.
ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY
4
Conclusion
The summary reflects that Purtee Pearson’s Dissertation (1990) provided a clear and
relevant theoretical framework of schema theory. The research questions were easily understood
and researchable, access to the research subjects was viable, and the schema theory provided a
solid foundational structure for the answers. As such, the building plan has enough structure to
hold firm and enough flexibility to make any modifications needed to withstand the realities of
stormy weather – answer her research questions fully.
ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY
5
References
McVee, M.B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J.R. (2005). Schema Theory Revisited. Review of
Educational Research, 75(4), 531-566. Retrieved from
http://journals.ohiolink.edu.proxy01.shawnee.edu/ejc/pdf.
Purtee Pearson, C. L. (1990). The comparison of the effects of three prereading advance
organizers on the literal comprehension of fifth-grade social studies materials (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/
Walker, G. (2013). A cognitive approach to threshold concepts. Higher Education: The
International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 65(2), 247-263.
Retrieved from
http://journals.ohiolink.edu.proxy01.shawnee.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Walker_Guy.pdf?issn=0018
1560&issue=v65i0002&article=247_acattc